Ingraham falsely asserted NY Times said "we should not update [FISA] to meet current advances in technology"
During the August 3 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, discussing the debate over proposed changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), nationally syndicated radio host Laura Ingraham falsely asserted that "[w]e have major editorial pages in the United States -- The New York Times, etc. -- saying that we should not update this surveillance law to meet current advances in technology." She added, "[W]e are now in a blackout with some of this intelligence ... because of what The New York Times and what the Democrats have done." In fact, in an August 3 editorial, the Times wrote that Congress should address the "anachronism" that currently "requires that the government seek such an individualized warrant for purely foreign communications that, nevertheless, move through American data networks." The Times went on to say that instead of addressing that anachronism, the White House "proposed giving the attorney general carte blanche to order eavesdropping on any international telephone calls or e-mail messages if he decided on his own that there was a 'reasonable belief' that the target of the surveillance was outside the United States."
The August 3 New York Times editorial referred to an August 2 Los Angeles Times article, which reported that a "special court that has routinely approved eavesdropping operations has put new restrictions on the ability of U.S. spy agencies to intercept e-mails and telephone calls of suspected terrorists overseas." As the August 3 editorial in The New York Times explained:
The government may freely monitor communications when both parties are outside the United States, but must get a warrant aimed at a specific person for communications that originate or end in this country. The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that the court that issues such warrants recently ruled that the law also requires that the government seek such an individualized warrant for purely foreign communications that, nevertheless, move through American data networks.
The New York Times did not go on to "say that we should not update this surveillance law to meet current advances in technology" as Ingraham asserted. In fact, the paper argued:
Instead of asking Congress to address this anachronism, as it should, the White House sought to use it to destroy the 1978 spying law. It proposed giving the attorney general carte blanche to order eavesdropping on any international telephone calls or e-mail messages if he decided on his own that there was a "reasonable belief" that the target of the surveillance was outside the United States. The attorney general's decision would not be subject to court approval or any supervision.
Further, news reports have indicated that congressional Democrats are willing to amend FISA. According to the Los Angeles Times article, "Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) said Wednesday that 'recent technical developments' had convinced him that 'we must take some immediate but interim step to improve collection of foreign intelligence in a manner that doesn't compromise civil liberties of U.S. citizens.' " The New York Times reported on August 1 that "Democratic leaders have expressed a new willingness to work with the White House to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it easier for the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on some purely foreign telephone calls and e-mail. Such a step now requires court approval." The New York Times editorial endorsed Rockefeller's approach as well as an alternate approach by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI):
Senator Jay Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, offered a sensible alternative law, as did his fellow Democrat, Senator Russ Feingold. In either case, the attorney general would be able to get a broad warrant to intercept foreign communications routed through American networks for a limited period. Then, he would have to justify the spying in court. This fix would have an expiration date so Congress could then dispassionately consider what permanent changes might be needed to FISA.
The editorial went on to argue that congressional negotiators should not concede that "all electronic surveillance of communication that originates or ends in the United States must be subject to approval and review by the FISA court under the 1978 law" or that the bill have a "firm expiration date."
From the August 3 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
KELLY WRIGHT (guest co-host): Well, while we're talking about what's happening at the White House, the president today, as you know, will be meeting with his national security team discussing counterterrorism and getting things done about that, and also there's the FISA development going on --
INGRAHAM: Yes.
WRIGHT: -- what Congress is going to do or not do about making sure that surveillance is conducted.
INGRAHAM: We have major editorial pages in the United States -- The New York Times, etc. -- saying that we should not update this surveillance law to meet current advances in technology. We're talking about intercepting communications between operatives of Al Qaeda.
WRIGHT: Right.
INGRAHAM: That's what we need to do. We don't need a warrant to do that. We need to do that, because the next attack that happens, heaven forbid in this city, or anywhere across the United States, the first people who are going to complain are [Rep.] Nancy Pelosi [D-CA], Congresswoman [Louise] Slaughter [D-NY]. All these people are going to say: "What was the Bush administration doing? They should have been connecting the dots. They should have been connecting this intelligence."
WRIGHT: Right.
INGRAHAM: Well, we can't get it because we are now in a blackout with some of this intelligence --
WRIGHT: Yeah.
INGRAHAM: -- because of what The New York Times and what the Democrats have done. They stand in the way of common sense. It's common-sense advances in these laws and we need to do it. It's absolutely critical.
Earlier on the show, while discussing the Minneapolis bridge collapse and accusations by some Democrats the Iraq war has diverted funding for infrastructure improvements, Ingraham asserted: "Obviously there are a lot of people invested in our defeat in Iraq, and you're seeing this play out day after day, no matter what is happening." This is not the first time conservative media commentators have accused war critics of being "invested in our defeat in Iraq." For example, as Media Matters for America documented, on the July 31 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson distorted comments Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) made to The Washington Post and asserted that those comments showed that some politicians' "nightly prayers are evidently that their country lose a war because otherwise they might lose an election." In addition, as Media Matters also documented, The Washington Times asserted in a July 23 editorial that "Mrs. [Sen. Hillary Rodham] Clinton [D-NY] is apparently so invested in defeat that she has been trying to browbeat the Defense Department into publicly discussing contingency plans for withdrawing from Iraq."
As Media Matters has documented, on
the July 31 broadcast of her radio show, Ingraham said that CNN had "emailed me"
and "said, 'Will you fill in the 8 o'clock [p.m. ET] hour for a week?' "
From the August 3 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
WRIGHT: Let's get serious about this situation where they're blaming President Bush for the collapse of the bridge in Minnesota.
STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Only took a day.
INGRAHAM: I thought that was MSNBC -- but oh no, it's the Daily Kos. Yeah. The Daily Kos, which is the big left-wing blog site where all the Democrats are actually going to their big convention this weekend, the far left -- George Soros gives them money. Within minutes of the bridge collapse, there was this message board where people are emailing in, every other word seemed to be "Halliburton," or "war on terror diverting funds -- should be used for structural deficiencies."
DOOCY: Right.
INGRAHAM: Essentially if something's happening bad in the United States or anywhere in our galaxy --
DOOCY: Sure.
INGRAHAM: -- it's George Bush's fault.
DOOCY: Well, in this case, there have been some vocal Democrats already out there. I mean, [Sen.] Harry Reid's [NV] come out and had some things --
INGRAHAM: Oh. That's a shock
DOOCY: Louise Slaughter, congresswoman from New York, said that, while, we need to tend to our own infrastructure, all the cash is going to Iraq.
INGRAHAM: Yeah, well, you know, this is what they're going to hang everything on. And, obviously, there are a lot of people invested in our defeat in Iraq, and you're seeing this play out day after day, no matter what is happening.
I am sorry Laura but I am not sure there are alot of people invested in our defeat in Iraq. I am not a fan of this war at all but I do not want defeat. I believe Obama and Hillary do not want defeat.
What's up? Did you get tired of bashing Keith Olbermann over on the Billdo thread?
Do you want to discuss this thread or do you want to alter the conversation? Do you agree with Laura or not?
Why would I agree with that idiot? BTW, please try not to be so snippy. : )
ok ;-)
I can't think of anyone I know who wants to lose. And I went to Marine Military Academy as a teenager (and yes, even though my parents moved often after the fact, I always found them!). Still more liberal than conservative...
Bush was asleeep at the wheel when Malaki publicly declared he had enough troops to defend the country and that Americans should leave. Bush should have declared victory and left Iraq, but not too far, of course.
But the oil fields are not secure and BushieCo's friendly defense contractors are not through milking the taxpayers!
Bush was NOT "asleep at the wheel". He was drunk - as usual....
Sue:
Try to understand. We Democrats and Liberals ALL want VICTORY over our enemies. Victiory over terrorists, and victory over other enemies of America.
We ALL wanted VICTORY in Afghanistan. We heard VICTORY defined as deposing the Taliban, destroying it, and then tracking down Bin Laden and taking him "dead or alive". We heard "he can run, but he can't hide."
We were denied VICTORY in Afghanistan, because the hunt for Bin Laden was abandoned, and the Taliban was not sufficiently wiped out, and we didn't finish the job. Instead, George W. Bush declared he wasn't interested in Bin Laden any more, and he diverted all our attention to Iraq.
The Taliban is now re-established, and the drug traffic is breaking all previous records.
We ALL wanted VICTORY in Iraq. We heard VICTORY defined as ridding Iraq of all Weapons of Mass destruction. We heard VICTORY defined as deposing Saddam Hussein, and bringing him to justice. We heard VICTORY defined as establishing a democratic government, elected by the people in votes held across the nation. All these things were achieved, and it was VICTORY.
Or WAS it?
Again, our VICTORY was denied, because George W. Bush keeps changing the criteria for defining VICTORY. The way he now defines it has to do with establishing "security" in the nation, and expecting the elected leadership to compromise in ways WE desire them to. Neither goal is achievable by military means, and neither goal is OUR BUSINESS. Neither goal is REMOTELY a reason for WAR, or continuing a war. Yet, Bush insists that THESE newly defined "victories" are necessary for American security at home.
Meanwhile, the OTHER VICTORY, over terrorism nationwide, has ALSO been abandoned. Terrorism (defined as Al Qaeda) is in over 60 nations of the world, in cells which operate within those nations. To make WAR on terrorism calls for specific intelligence, cooperation, and the planning and execution of "surgical" strikes to destroy our enemies.
The FIRST step of this type of WAR is diplomacy ... gaining the cooperation of other nations in locating and destroying these terrorist cells. The Administration of George W. Bush considers diplomacy to be weakness, and an "appeasing". So he doesn't do it. So we are not fighting any kind of effective "war" on terrorism. Victory has again been denied us, by our President.
It is not the American people, it is not Democrats nor Liberals who do not want VICTORY. We DO. It is George W. Bush who keeps moving those goalposts, rationalizing why we had to abandon the agreed-to goals, and take on unachievable goals. It is George W. Bush who has consistently DENIED America of any VICTORY ... even when they were in our grasp, or actually ACHIEVED!
Americans are tired of being blamed, being accused, being challenged ... when it is clear that it is not WE THE PEOPLE who are the problem here. As our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers DIE in Iraq, and 30,000 now maimed for life, we see no end in sight, because our President keeps setting new goals ... goals which cannot be achieved by military might ... short of killing ALL Iraqis.
On the other hand, Iraqi Oil continues to flow, and American oil corprations continue to post record profits in the tens of BILLIONS. Haliburton is thriving. We begin to wonder if WAR is the goal, rather than VICTORY. This would explain why our President keeps DENYING Victory for the American People.
He may define VICTORY in different terms ... in terms of "cash flow" for his friends. If this is the case, the betrayal of America is incalculable. It is too horrible to contemplate, but the EVIDENCE tells us we MUST.
So well said. If one takes the blinders off, the motives become clear. Thanks, Tex
Sueeld, you are so correct. The problem is the GOP and specifically the warmachine of the Bush administration and planted in the minds of everyone that if you are against this war you are rooting for defeat. As you and I have discussed in the past with other posters as well, we have allready lost in Iraq, the problem now is gettting out and without doing more damage. Its a lose lose situatlion, but that does not mean we want America to fail. America has failed now it can only do better. I still can not wait until January 20, 2009 when Bush and his corrupt friends are gone for good.
Is it really this hard for cons like Ingraham to understand logic and have a firm grasp on reality? Or does she really understand that she's wrong and misrepresenting the editorials on this issue, including the one by the NY Times?
It's really very simple. She's really very simple.
Reason and perception are not the qualities to judge these people on... they're probably sharper thinking and sharper talking than your average dude walking down the street.
They're not idiots, they're paid advocates...
...highly-paid advocates for political causes... for the political causes of those who pay them, the ownership of whatever "media" company they work for.
Highly-paid political advocates in the "media": They'll say anything, as long as the check doesn't bounce... they're little different from publicity agents and public relations specialists and unethical lawyers... they'll say and do anything, if the compensation is right.
They're not idiots, they're whores.
Who actually watches this show?
A side note - I worked at a crosstown rival station in a market that Kelly Wright came from. All anyone can remember about him is the way he put the audience to sleep with his delivery...so I guess he's the perfect foil for media whores like Laura Ingraham.
And yes, Laura, sounding shriller than ever, ever more Coulter-ish. Her echoing of the repungnants talking points of the day (Rush, Sean, et al, saying the SAME THING), to some how deny that we are not spending billions in Iraq, money that would be better spent right here in the U.S., on education, health care, and the infrastructure - the roads, the bridges, the tunnels. Benefitting the people who are bearing the burden of the taxes these days - the middle class! Who have to use these roads and byways to get to work!
So who is 'investing' in our defeat in Irag, Laura? Just ask our puppet president, Bushie the Clown!
Just to set the record straight on this, at least part of the warrantless NSA program has been ruled illegal!:
"...on Thursday John Boehner, the House minority leader, disclosed that a Fisa judge had ruled the programme illegal earlier this year." -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20110725
Here is an earlier article from August 1 that mentions some other details about it:
"There's been a ruling, over the last four or five months, that prohibits the ability of our intelligence services and our counterintelligence people from listening in to two terrorists in other parts of the world where the communication could come through the United States," Boehner said on an interview with Fox News anchor Neal Cavuto. -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20075751/site/newsweek/
I don't watch much TV, but are they even covering this at all? I don't find many mentions of it when I search the net.
It was Keith Olbermann's lead story tonight. Sorry Sue.
I wonder if Billdo covered it?
Bill probably covered Dodd tonight , i do not know. I stopped watching both of them.
I agree Sueeld, there is alot of major distractions in cable news today. It is not serious.
Doocy
These guys on FOX and Friends have IQs of 25. Another example of very dumb morning media types.
I strongly disagree! There's no way it's over 15.
Everybody knows how the president and his administration love to make excuses, however strained, to avoid even the appearance of any error or wrong-doing... where every error or misdeed is someone elses fault, never their fault... it would be laughable, if it weren't sometimes tragic.
The events of September 11, 2001 are the least funny example of this love of excuse-making, on the part of George W. Bush and his administration... they not only claimed they could not have discerned those attacks would happen, but when confronted with the no small amount of intelligence indicating the nature of the attacks, they even invented clever terminology to make their excuse:
"Connect The Dots"... yeah, that's the perfect way to characterize failing to make anything of the many flags raised, indicating the likelihood of an attack: "We couldn't connect the dots... that's our excuse, and we're sticking to it."
There was the PDB of August 6, 2001, titled (I believe) "bin laden determined to attack in the U.S.", and I believe also that briefing (or another before 9/11) also said that hijacked commercial airliners would even be likely used in such an attack... and we got more excuse-making, to a ridiculous and unbelievable degree:
"OK, we were told about the possibility of hijacked commercial airliners used in a possible attack, but we only anticipated a CONVENTIONAL HIJACKING... how could we ever have figured out those airliners would be used as weapons?"
I recall NSA Rice being the prime spokesperson for that excuse, continually insulting our intelligence by distinguishing ridiculously on "conventional hijackings", versus airliners intentionally crashed.
But perhaps you recall as I do, one of the more brazen and insulting and infuriating excuses these guys made, for dropping the ball on September 11, 2001... during the hearings of the 9/11 Commission, when AG John Ashcroft was called to testify (John Ashcroft, who strangely stopped flying commercial aircraft, right about the time intelligence told him about the likelihood of hijackings)...
AG Ashcroft made his prepared statement before being interviewed by the Commission, and in his sternest most serious voice, begins outlining the importance of intelligence in preventing an attack like that on 9/11... of how a free flow of information must exist between departments and agencies (you know, so they can "connect the dots")... and John gets real serious, his voice almost trembling, because he now knows why they couldn't "connect the dots" on 9/11... he now knows who dropped the ball (and it wasn't him that's for sure)...
...it was 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick!
It was her fault!
True, she was no member of the Bush administration on September 11, 2001; and she didn't make any Laws or Regulations (that not being her former authority in the DOJ)...
She wrote a memo; not a Law and not a Regulation, a memo; when she was at the DOJ during the Clinton administration.
Now I don't know what all the memo said, but what I do know is an excuse when I hear one, and that one was infuriating... never mind that the FBI had an informant actually living with three of the 9/11 hijackers, in that informant's house in San Diego (and I say something like that is significant)... never mind that FBI agents had already inquired about potential hijackers taking jumbo jet flying lessons in Phoenix... never mind that even the FAA knew the indentities of the hijackers, and that they were in this country... never mind that stuff, the FBI dropped the ball because of a memo one of the 9/11 Commissioners wrote, years before.
Now, why am I recalling this for you, and pointing out to you here, in this matter of the FISA, what you already know, of how in love with making excuses, George W. Bush and his gang are?
For this reason: This tussle over just how the FISA should read, and how it should be enforced, and what oversight Congress might have of that enforcement... if NDI McConnell doesn't get all that he wants in this matter (and I know what you're going to say: "why should he get what he wants in the FISA?")... that whatever provision of the FISA he as NDI does not get...
...that will be the reason he will be unable to detect the planning, should anyone attack the American People, here in the U.S., in the next year and a half.
That will be George W. Bush's excuse, for dropping the ball: "We were unable to detect the planning of the attack, because we were hobbled and hamstrung and handicapped, by a FISA that was insufficient, to the job we wanted to do."
And when (or should I say if) these weasels make such an excuse as that (and they love making excuses), they will not be citing a memo (a memo?), they won't even be citing a mere Regulation...
...they'll be using the law as their excuse: The FISA.
Give them what they want (I know how much you don't want to hear that)... give them whatever provisions they want in the FISA...
Don't give them another excuse, for dropping the ball and allowing thousands of Americans to be murdered on their watch (murdered on their watch, and not because of a memo).
We only have seventeen more months of this criminal Bush administration... give them the FISA they want... its only seventeen months, we can live with it....
...but don't give them an excuse, because you know how they love to make excuses, for September 11 and everything else.
I believe I read one of the Senate Dems propose exactly that: a temporary measure, easing the authorization to intercept, but expiring after a period of observation (to allow renewal, extension, change, or reduction, as appropriate based on that observation). Iff I correctly understood the expressed problem, and the proposed solution, I suppose I would grant even Bungle and Darth that much, in order to facilitate surviving their incompetence while preparing the cells for them.
Yes, the Senate yesterday voted 60-28 to give the president what he's asking for... which is to say, the Senate voted to NOT give George W. Bush any more excuses for getting Americans murdered on his watch, by his "good friends" and business partners.
The AP is characterizing it not quite like that though, and have simply "Senate Passes Bush Spy Bill" as title to their latest item on that vote.
In the House, they know the stakes here too... they know the president would just love it, if they'd give him a ready-made excuse to allow more Americans to be slaughtered on his watch... he's even enjoying the appearance of a weak FISA so much, that he's trying to foul House Democrats up, by renegging on the agreed upon provisions of the FISA.
Bad faith-based negotiations: What do you expect.
But at this hour, House Democrats are not going to give this guy the political fodder (and potential excuse) of a supposedly insufficient FISA (and here we must note, that the administration holds the cards here, and they hold them close to the vest... we have entrusted them, to our great misfortune, with the administration of our intelligence gathering agencies... there's little option we have here in this particular matter... we're a little bit at the mercy, you must admit, of the devil and his "good friends" and business partners, regarding intelligence gathering)...
This morning, House Democrats will (I believe) both take up and pass, the Senate's version of the FISA.
Good.
It heads the devil off, from the posture he so loves; a leering grinning cackling hunched-over fear mongering, as he invokes "evil" to us...
Well, we know about evil anyway, George W. Bush... we know we have to suffer it at the helm of the administration of our Federal Government, for seventeen more months...
For how many more deaths, I don't know, who can say... but we take not much comfort (but some), in knowing that when next the president's "good friends" and business partners murder Americans here in the U.S. (and we hope that happens never again, not in the balance of the devil's term, or any other time)...
We know that won't be their excuse: "The FISA was insufficient for the job"...
...they'll have to find another excuse... they'll have to dig up another memo somehwhere, written during the Clinton administration.
I hope she does get her week on CNN. And I hope MMFA watches her like a hawk.
Because, I predict, she will be no worse than most of the anchors there already. And that will speak volumes.
I catch Ingraham occasionally while driving to work in the morning. If I'm not mistaken, she claims to have a background in law, which is pretty shocking. Her arguing skills are about 1/2 a rung above Sean Hannity's.
Maybe that's why she's a Republican radio shill, and not a lawyer. Hopefully her daddy got a receipt and was able to write off the Law School tuition.
Did she went to the same law school as "Mann" Coulter?
Did she WENT????? See I changed "Maybe " to "Did" and.... Aww, forget it.
Hey, I'll bet Laura's sorority partied with Coulter's fraternity.
I'll bet they does too. Ingraham am stoopid. ;0)
These Conservatives do not know when to stop the lies.
Ingraham managed to get in the major talking points of the day even before her defeat remarks.
The truth is that the country has not been investing in bridges and other infrastructure because the cons are so hell bent on cutting taxes for the rich and pillaging the treasury for endless war (or more prisons) Yes, we do blame George Bush and all the other Republican fat cats.
"The philospher Isaiah Berlin once said that the trouble with academics and commentators is that they care more about whether ideas are interesting than whether they are true"-NYT Michael Ignatieff
Disclaimer: This is in no way an endorsement of the the New York Times. They are what helped ME get into this mess in the first place. Yes, I bought all that carp about a calaphyte.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
These Honorable Senators stood on two legs, with a backbone, like a real patriot to protect, and defend our form of American Democracy!!
I think the idea that men like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove, David Addington, Scooter Libby, Ken Mehlmann, Dan Bartlett ect... could be trusted for the past 6 years that they have confessed to be engaged in spying on Americans without warrants or oversight of any kind, could reframe from spying on their political opponents to be on it’s face ridiculous.
NOT ONE REPUBLICAN DEEMS OUR PRIVACY, AND THIS ADMINISTRATIONS' WILLINGNESS TO INVADE IT, IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO PROTECT!!! NOT ONE REPUBLICAN BELIEVES THIS POWER A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNANCE!!!!
You want to know the primary reason I title my posts the same every single time since November '04? I took the same oath that my brothers, and sisters have, the same whom sacrificed with the ultimate sacrifice in blood for 230 year history, and we serve to protect and defend American Democracy, not the loyalties of an individual, or party!!!
To listen to this abomination flog the log of fear yet again, the woman who wandered the green-zone, and Camp Anaconda with Special Forces to tell America that the real story wasn't being told about the America's successes!!! The Band-Aid Purple Heart wearing Fascists has no standing as an American in my book, and if you believe in representative democracy how could a real American embrace her propaganda?
If your Senators are not on the above-mentioned list, I would beg you to please join me in the ’08 election cycle to vote for change!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan GradySAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Where are the Republicans??
Akaka (D-HI)Baucus (D-MT)Biden (D-DE)Bingaman (D-NM)Brown (D-OH)Byrd (D-WV)Cantwell (D-WA)Cardin (D-MD)Clinton (D-NY)Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)Feingold (D-WI)Kennedy (D-MA)Kohl (D-WI)Lautenberg (D-NJ)Leahy (D-VT)Levin (D-MI)Menendez (D-NJ)Obama (D-IL)Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)Rockefeller (D-WV)Sanders (I-VT)Schumer (D-NY)Stabenow (D-MI)Tester (D-MT)Whitehouse (D-RI)Wyden (D-OR)